tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 18 10:32:08 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: ja'chuq explained (was: chetvI' yIHuvmoH)

: I'll add to this that so far as I know, Okrand has confirmed
: (at one of the qep'a'mey, I believe) only ONE case of what
: appears to possibly be a verb plus suffix actually being a
: separate verb root:  lo'laH.
:    [snip]
: He had to do it. Otherwise, he could never use {lo'laH}
: adjectivally, since {-laH} is not a suffix you can put on a
: verb when it is used adjectivally, as in the term "valuable
: information".
:    [snip]
: As it happens, there are two distinctly different words which
: have the same spelling: lo'laH and lo'laH. One is a two
: syllable root verb.  One is a one syllable root verb with a one
: syllable suffix. They look alike, but they behave differently
: and have different meanings. Perhaps in the past, they were the
: same, but this is not the past and we care mostly about the
: current state of the language.
: 
: charghwI'

Okrand posted this comment on {lo'laH} on the Expert Forum (11/97):

    It is a simple verb in its own right (though it's an unusual
    two-syllable one), not the verb {lo'} use plus Type 5 suffix 
    {-laH} can. It is likely that there is some sort of historical
    connection to the verb + suffix form, but, if so, it is just
    that--historical.
 

-- 
Voragh                           "Grammatici certant et adhuc sub judice
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons     lis est."         Horace (Ars Poetica)

Back to archive top level